Referendums and abstention
- This topic has 33 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Apparently referendums in Hungary have been lost due to abstention leading to a turn-out of under 50%:
Quote:In 1990, there was a referendum on the direct election of the president. The turnout was 13.8 per cent and the measure was supported by 86.0 per cent of those voting. However, the measure failed because it was supported by less than 50 per cent of the eligible voters.Found another article on a referendum in Australia from Socialist Comment, in the May 1948 issue. Here's part of what it says:
Quote:Late this month we shall be asked to say "yes" or "no" to the question of the "Rents and Priccs— including Charges” amendment to section 51 of the Constitution.This is not because the Government has any respect for the opinion of the Working Class, (except on Polling Day!) but because no Government, Labor, Liberal, or Country Party, could make any alteration to the Constitution without the consent of the people by a direct democratic vote.Since we, the Working Class, are the majority of the people, both sides in this contest are frantic in their efforts to convince us that our interests depend on supporting their case.Quote:So much for the Parties in the limelight, and the reasons for their support or opposition to the amendment. But since we have a vote on this matter, how will it effect us, the Working Class?Quote:The choice before us boils down to this,—the possibiiity of inflation without controls, or the granting of constitutional powers to peg wages with controls tighter than those the Government has already.In other words, between scarlet fever and diphtheria!The Socialist will decide to have none of them, but will leave the master class, sections of which think they have something at stake, to fight it out with the help of those of the working class they can continue to fool.Those of us who recognize the contest for what it is will seize the opportunity to wrlte across our ticket, once again, the change we DO want, and will go on working for until we get it, SOCIALISM.So, the question of the socialist attitude to referendums has posed itself in practical terms before, and been answered on specific referendums.
John McDonnell outlined for us what “socialism” is at yesterday’s Labour Party conference: the £10 minimum wage and “more state intervention in the economy”.This is what 99.99% of the population think constitutes “socialism”.So what exactly is the point of writing “WORLD SOCIALISM” on your ballot paper?
What do you propose that socialists write, then? Actually, we ought to discuss McDonnell's use of the word "socialism" on another thread.
ALB said – on the McDonnell thread:
Quote:Of course it's a gesture but the purpose is not to convert the vote counters. What's important is that, in saying during elkection times that we're going to do this, we are making the political point that we reject all the parties on offer because they all support capitalism in one form or another. (Actually, in practice, I suspect that many of our Party members don't do this. They simply abstain. ) But what are you suggesting we do: vote for a so-called "lesser evil"? Or would you right something else on the ballot paper".You are really raising a broader question which we have often discussed and that is whether we should continue to describe ourselves as "socialist" and say we stand for "socialism". We're not likely to change this for all sorts of reason (including emotional) and, if we did, when we described what we do want, some people (more than you suggest) are going to say "ah, but isn't that socialism".The fact that some Labour leaders are now talking again about "socialism" works both ways. It confuses what "socialism" is but, like Bernie Sanders in America, allows us to get in on the debate by saying what socialism means or should mean. There's some mileage in us saying "oh no, McDonnell doesn't stand for socialism but state capitalism. Here's what socialism really means".ALB also said:
Quote:What do you propose that socialists write, then?In answer to that last question, I wish I knew. But some contributors seem to think that abstentions are worse that writing these two words; and I don’t agree.No, I wouldn’t vote in an election for a “lesser evil”. I’m not the greatest economic brain, but I cannot see that tinkering with the juggernaut that is capitalism is going to achieve anything, not even slightly delay it in its track.Watching McDonnell and Corbyn at the moment, you just know that the economic system is going to force them to backtrack; for example, the unions are keen to preserve jobs, so they would like factories to carry on producing nuclear warheads – they don’t want redundancies! Etc, etc.As regards ballot papers – apart from abstaining, another possibility is to write an epistle about what socialism really is – but who would read it, what would the point be.I listen to phone-ins, I read comments under articles, and I despair at people’s general understanding of their situation. Let’s hope you’re right, that there is some mileage to be had in the Sanders/Corbyn wave.
The Australian article from Socialist Comment of 1948 puts the only possible Socialist position on a capitalist referendum. Re-read it and re-consider your decision not to be bothered to register your affirmation of S O C I A L I S M
Isn't the point not what we write, but that we:a: Don't vote for non-socialist parties.b: All write the same thing to show we are a discplined distinctive movement.If 15,000 people wrote the same thing, the message would start getting through.
Still not convinced that the only possible Socialist position in all referendums is to write SOCIALISM or WORLD SOCIALISM across the ballot paper. It is possible to conceive of some referendums where a different position could be adopted, at least by individual members if not by the party.On the question of abstention or write-in vote, one reason for the latter is to show that we value the existence of the ballot as a means for the working class, when socialist, to win control of political power for socialism. Abstention on principle is more for anarchists who don't think this. Also in Australia voting is compulsory. No need to risk having to make a donation to the state for abstaining (though I'm not sure that people there are actually prosecuted for not voting).
Young Master Smeet wrote:Isn't the point not what we write, but that we:a: Don't vote for non-socialist parties.b: All write the same thing to show we are a discplined distinctive movement.If 15,000 people wrote the same thing, the message would start getting through.The point isa: More positive than that — a Socialist is one who does vote for W O R L D S O C I A L I S Mb: See Post #6 (above) for what actually did happen in Tasmania when a third of the population (at a compulsory vote, which truly represented the political view of one third of the adult population) actually did write-in the same thing on their ballot paper.At the ballot box there is no other way to register yourself as a W O R L D S O C I A L I S T.There is N O C A P I T A L I S T I S S U E that is not an issue for capital.There is only one issue for socialists: C A P I T A L I S M is the only socialist issue.
ALB wrote:Also in Australia voting is compulsory. No need to risk having to make a donation to the state for abstaining (though I'm not sure that people there are actually prosecuted for not voting).Oh yes they are, as one defiant ex-SPGBer migrant to Australia discovered to his chagrin.
I hadn't realised this before but the write-in vote tactic is allowed in the US and has been successdully applied in an election to the US Senate as recently as 201). See here.So, in advocating it we are not advocating something completely outlandish. It's a legitimate election tactic under certain circumstances. Of course in Britain it would be counted only as a spoilt ballot paper. Nevertheless.
Two bits of news.http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/colombia-referendum-peace-accord-farc-rejected-161002220514696.htmlIn Columbia, the peace agreement was very narrowly defeated but the turn out was just 40%http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/hungary-referendum-eu-migrant-quotas-fails-low-turnout-a7342071.htmlIn Hungary, the anti-migrant referendum failed have not achieved the requisite turn-out of 44% I would have voted for peace in Columbia as i commented on the Socialist Standard article on the Farc. Peace at all costs, (that is why we applauded Lenin's decision)While arguing for abstention in the Hungary referendum as the best tactic to defeat it rather than a no. Four per cent of the votes were spoiled — twice as many as in any of the other four referenda held since 1997 — driving down the number of valid votes to just below 40 per cent. But a spoiled ballot would effectively made it easier for the 50% turn-out threshold to be met as they were counted in the turn-out.
alanjjohnstone wrote:But a spoiled ballot would effectively made it easier for the 50% turn-out threshold to be met as they were counted in the turn-out.I don't think that's right. The threshold is 50% of valid votes not 50% of turnout. Otherwise your two tailed dog party would have been stupid to call for voters to spoil their ballot paper. At over 220,000 or 4%, the number of spoilt votes is quite impressive.
yup…my usual failing of not reading what i see. Now if we ever had 4% writing "world socialism", i think we would be extremely pleased.I'm all ears for ideas on how this could be accomplishedhttp://www.dw.com/en/orban-ropes-hungarian-roma-into-anti-refugee-campaign/a-35944193I did read an article where Orban tried to appeal to the Roma for support on the basis that the lowest of the low would have their miserable existence undermined even more by newcomers. But one Roma spokesperson refused to fall for the government clap-trap.
Quote:"Most people now think that migrants are some three-headed aliens with four arms who will rape all the women and will destroy everything, so this kind of hate should not be amplified as it could really hit back on the Roma later," Lakatos said. "Hungary shows no tolerance for the oppressed. Government or society does not even show minimal tolerance of the poorest or the weakest: On the contrary, the government even amplifies such aversions."Regards Colombia, this seems a good analysis, something similar to the Remain campaign in the EU" the “yes” side took the support of the people for granted…"https://www.countercurrents.org/2016/10/03/no-to-peace-in-colombia/
Sometimes those so called referendum they do not reflect the desires of the majority of the population. In Colombia there was a 63% abstention for the peace accord between the Colombian government and the FARC. The peace accord lost for 1%, which means that around 19% of the population do not favor the peace agreement, and 18% do approve itThis accord does show the reformist character of the Maoists and the Castroists, and they should know that any peace agreement with the bourgeois never work, and they should know that when they dispose all their weapons, the USA government and the Colombian government are going to try to kill all of them , or they will become allied of the State like it has happened in the Caribbean.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.